About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
directly at odds with house speaker john boehner. >> could you accept a deal that does not include tax rate increases for the wealthy? we've seen talk about a possible compromise that could leave rates the same but cap deductions for high-income earners. is that something that's acceptable? >> no. >> not at all no, way? >> no. the preponderance made it very clear in his campaign that there are not enough -- what you just described is a formula and a blueprint for hampering our future. you cannot go forward -- you have to cut some investments. if you cut too many you are hampering growth, you're hampering education, investments for the future. >> and even thousands of miles away it appears president obama is still focused on those negotiations. while touring a royal monastery with secretary of state clinton in thailand the president was overheard mentioning the budget talks to a monk. the president later clarified his comments -- >> he's not any monk. >> no. >> he has some big i vestments in the stock market. >> he later clarified his comments at a news conference. >> yes, we were working on
would be willing to accept and double the amount that speaker boehner had offered the president during their debt negotiations last year. today the president is scheduled to meet with ceos from a dozen companies. there's some of them on your screen. general electric, ford, ibm all playing a part. they'll discuss ways to work together and try to find a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. during a closed-door meeting yesterday with union leaders and liberal supporters, president obama reportedly vowed that he would, quote, not budge when it comes to letting the bush tax cuts expire for the country's highest earners. labor leader and president of the afl-cio, richard trumka, was among those at the white house meeting. he said he and the president are on the same page. >> we're very, very committed to making sure that the middle class and workers don't end up paying the tab for a party that we didn't get to go to. the president led with that notion of protecting the middle class, and now you have republicans that have it in their power, they could sign a bill tomorrow that protects
election? >> no, not at all. in fact, after election day the president, speaker boehner, senate ma minority leader mitch mcconnell all talking about the facecle life, what they were going to do, not going to do, what they wanted to negotiate, not negotiate, but on friday, as news exploded out from the cia thanks to our own andrea mitchell that the president accepted the resignation of the cia director, general david petraeus, all of that -- you have to add that plus all the things you talked about, fiscal cliff, to what the president has to deal with. as you said, no honeymoon, indeed. >> and added to what jonathan just said, julian, there are some concerns over this that this is just the tip of the iceberg. i want to play you something senator feinstein said to andrea mitchell this afternoon. >> this thing came so fast and hard. since then it's been like peeling an onion. every day another peel comes off and you see a whole new dimension to this. so my concern has actually escalated over the last few days. >> it's clear she's suggesting this is going well beyond the realm of a personal mat
.6 trillion of new revenue. boehner had agreed to $800 billion. it's not hard to find $1.2 trillion as a kind of middle ground to that. then you want to have $4 trillion of total deficit reduction, so that leaves $2.8 trillion of spending reductions that have to happen. here's what people miss. we can avoid going over the cliff with the stroke of a pen. they can just extend all this stuff and kick the can down the road. the real question is are we going to have a big deal? are we going to agree on the major spending restraints that we need as well as the tax stuff in order to actually get the deficit under control? and i think the betting on that is less than 50%. i think we have a great shot at it. but it's going to be really, really hard. >> is that the view from wall street, too? they're not totally confident that this is going to happen? >> what you see in the stock market at the moment is that wall street is not totally confident. that's for sure. >> all right. steve, thanks so much. >> pleasure. >>> coming up, independent senator-elect of maine, angus king joins the conversation. he's a
and the ongoing relationship with boehner and mcconnell because he's going to have to be a different kind of leader with them. he talked about it in the press conference a bit the other day. he needs to reach out to them the way he's reached out to people on staten island and dealt with the two governors, christie and cuomo, who are two pretty demanding guys as well. and based on their public and private comments have been very happy with the president's leadership and his government. >> i just wonder if it's fair to make a parallel when you look at the president's response to sandy which has had and continues to have just devastating effects on the economy for businesses and the reaction to the bp oil spill which seemed slow in coming because that was devastating as well to a different part of the country. >> he certainly was. he was very slow to respond to people in the gulf coast. >> in terms of appearances. >> i think things have changed, though, over the past couple years. and i suspect that, you know, even the president's closest allies will say that it was a very hard adjustment go
boehner. i mean they are the most important players as to whether we get a result. secondly, i've said from day one, i've been saying it for two years, the most important piece of this, andrea, really is medicare because as you look at glen hubbard, as you look at others talking about all these things, the two are intertwined. in other words, as we see true medicare reforms and you see a real solution to medicare, where people know that we've put this behind us and we've dealt with it, i think you see the dial change as it relates to revenue. so, you know, i've been discussing revenues now for at least two years. i do think republicans are open to revenues that are put in place and a pro growth way, but i think people want to see that we've actually dealt with the problem. we haven't generated more revenues without solving the fundamental problems we have and we have what we want to do is put ourselves on a path towards fiscal solvency. i think the key here really is, medicare and to the extent you dial that up and solve it, i think you also dial the other dial which is revenues and i
and you see speaker boehner clearly wants a deal and, perhaps, has more leverage now with the house republican caucus, but once you get down to the actual negotiations, there are some very tough issues here, a reason this has not been resolved in previous summits. >> that's right but i am optimistic there was a clear mandate, the mandate was for solving our problems. i'm encouraged at no labels.org, an organization that has about 600,000 people, is putting together a group of 40 members of congress evenly split between democrats and republicans who are agreeing to come together as a problem solver's caucus, that the leadership can go to and cut deals on these important problems like the fiscal cliff, education. we have members of congress that recognize that people want them to be problem solvers and work across the aisle. we'll be announcing these 40 members in short order and that represents the kind of mood we're seeing in the shift in congress. >> let me ask you both about mitt romney's post-election comments last wednesday, be in a telephone conference call with donors. many of
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)